It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)

The libertarian underdogs; Kucinich and Paul agree on abrogating NAFTA the WTO and the North American Union, they also agree on getting out of Iraq.

Karen Kwiatowski a libertarian blogger on the 'liberal' Huffington Post agrees with me in regards to the libertarian candidates in the upcoming U.S. Presidential Election.

Ron Paul, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich are the only candidates who seem to understand this. They are also the only candidates who will quickly, if not immediately, end the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Wait a sec -- I mean end it peacefully. Ultimately, Iraqis and their supporters around the world will bring down the American occupation -- but they will do so limb by limb, heart by heart, and soul by soul. They will kill thousands of us and themselves before it reaches that inevitable point of non-occupation and honest political independence. Only Paul and two underfunded Democratic contenders offer wisdom to Americans across the nation who are hungry for wisdom, at least in foreign policy.However -- it is in domestic policy where Ron Paul completes the package. Unlike the democratic longshots, and the candidacy of GuiliClintoRomnObamThomEdwaCain, Ron Paul is about real freedom. Freedom to choose, freedom to live, freedom to decide for ourselves. He offers freedom from excessive government mandates, excessive rules and regulations, excessive confiscation of our life and property. In this, Paul is the only real conservative in the group, and yes, perhaps the only radical.

4 comments:

1) Because his position is not untenable by Libertarian principals (the Non-Aggression principal). This is because when a person becomes a person is a matter of definition which cannot be rationally answered. This means that if you define a fertilized egg as a person, then Libertarian principals require that you not initiate force against him. If you define life as starting at birth, of course, there is no such issue. The third possibility, which obviates this problem, is to define the womb as private property, and an unwanted child as trespassing, but even there, in order to support abortion by this logic, you would also have to be willing to support evicting a stow-away from an airplane in flight. Personally, I would argue that if somebody stows away on your airplane, and you are in flight, you have an obligation to wait until you land to throw him off, unless the extra weight will cause you to run out of fuel and crash.

I define life as starting at birth, so my beliefs permit abortion while they forbid throwing a stow-away off an airplane in flight. But I can give no rational reason that my definition is better than Ron Paul's.

2) He may be opposed to all abortion, but he is not trying to outlaw it at the federal level. He sees it as a state's rights issue. This is consistent with Murder and Robbery both being state issues, and means that at worst, in the few states that would outlaw abortion, people who needed one would have to drive a few hours. Of course ignoring the issue at the state level and allowing country or city governments to address the issue is even better.

3) Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to cut the size of government. He wants to move in the same direction I want to move. We can settle the abortion issue once the Federal Reserve, the IRS, the FDA, the DEA, the USDA, the NSA, the DOL, the DOE, and the DUM are gone. (ok, so I made up DUM ... sue me).

The Ron Paul so-called "revolution" can only be healthy for America. How long has it been since ideas of individual freedom have been tauted loudly in America? At least 100 years of collectivist nonsense have practically destroyed the spirit of joy that once was America.

Here's a very good article regarding Ron Paul:http://spirituallibertarian.blogspot.com/